ll

ArticleLevelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in
the United States
Brennan Borlaug, Shawn
Salisbury, Mindy Gerdes,
Matteo Muratori
matteo.muratori@nrel.gov

HIGHLIGHTS
Average cost to charge a battery
EV (including equipment) in the
US is $0.15/kWh
Over 15 years, EVs can savethousands of USD in fuel costs
compared with gasoline
Costs vary widely depending on
location, use, charging behavior,and equipment cost
Residential off-peak time-of-use
charging reduces the average costby 24%

The cost to charge an electric vehicle (EV) varies depending on the price ofelectricity at different charging sites (home, workplace, public), by region and timeof day, vehicle use, and for different charging power levels and equipment/
installation costs. We report state-level charging costs under alternative scenarios,
showing major variability owing to regional heterogeneity and different charging
strategies. We also calculate the lifetime fuel cost savings of an EV compared withthose of a gasoline vehicle while accounting for regional gasoline price variations.

Borlaug et al., Joule 4, 1470–1485
July 15, 2020 ª 2020 Elsevier Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013

llArticleLevelized Cost of Charging Electric
Vehicles in the United States
Brennan Borlaug,1 Shawn Salisbury,2 Mindy Gerdes,2 and Matteo Muratori1,3,*

SUMMARY

Context & Scale

The cost to charge an electric vehicle (EV) varies depending on theprice of electricity at different charging sites (home, workplace,public), vehicle use, region, and time of day, and for different
charging power levels and equipment and installation costs. This paper provides a detailed assessment of the current (2019) levelized
cost of light-duty EV charging in the United States, considering
the purchase and installation costs of charging equipment and electricity prices from real-world utility tariffs. We find national averages
of $0.15/kWh for battery EVs and $0.14/kWh for plug-in hybrid EVs
in the United States. Costs, however, vary considerably (e.g., $0.08/
kWh to $0.27/kWh for battery EVs) for different charging behaviors
and equipment costs, corresponding to a total projected fuel costsavings between $3,000 and $10,500 compared with gasoline vehicles (over a 15-year time horizon). Regional heterogeneities and uncertainty on lifetime vehicle use and future fuel prices produce evengreater variations.

Cost is a major driver of vehicle
adoption, and while muchemphasis has been placed on thehigh purchase price associatedwith electric vehicles (EVs), it isimportant to also consider
operating costs, including fuel.
The cost to charge an EV varies
depending on the price ofelectricity at different charging
sites (home, workplace, public),
vehicle use, region, and time ofday, and for different charging
power levels and equipment/
installation costs. Despite this,most studies assume a single EV
charging cost. We provide a
detailed assessment of the current
levelized cost of charging (LCOC)
in the United States, considering
when, where, and how EVs arecharged. The LCOC includes
costs associated with thepurchase and installation of
charging equipment and retailelectricity prices, derived fromreal-world utility tariffs. To
contextualize the LCOC, we
estimate lifetime fuel cost savings,
comparing refueling costs for EVs
with those for conventional
gasoline vehicles over a 15-year
vehicle life.

INTRODUCTION
Electric vehicles (EVs) are increasingly becoming accepted alternatives to lightduty internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) because of their lack of tailpipe
emissions, low operating costs, and positive overall driving experience. Supported
by national and local regulations, technology advancements (particularly the decline
in the cost of lithium-ion battery packs1,2), charging infrastructure investments,
and increased consumer acceptance, worldwide annual sales of personally owned
light-duty EVs surpassed the 2 million mark in 2018, with more than 360,000 new
EVs sold in 2018 in the United States alone.3,4
Although the rise in EV sales is supported by several factors, cost has been shown
to be of significant importance for the large-scale adoption of new vehicle technologies.5,6 Much emphasis has been placed on the high purchase price associated with
EV ownership7,8; however, it is important to also consider operating costs, including
fuel and maintenance, when assessing the total cost of vehicle ownership.
It is widely believed that EVs are less expensive to maintain than ICEVs, throughthe reduction of routine scheduled services, decreased brake wear (from regenerative braking), and by result of having fewer fluids and moving parts to monitor.9
In 2018, New York City’s electric fleet vehicles saved an average of 80% per vehicle
on maintenance costs versus equivalent ICEVs.10 The American Automobile Association (AAA), however, estimates a more moderate 18% savings from its study
on operating costs.11 More reliable life cycle maintenance data for alternative
powertrains are needed to accurately estimate the economic benefits of EV
maintenance. Fuel cost savings, on the contrary, are simpler to calculate and can

1470 Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020 ª 2020 Elsevier Inc.

ll

Articlebe substantial when considered throughout a vehicle’s lifespan. Electricity is often
cheaper than gasoline; additionally, EVs have better powertrain efficiencies than
ICEVs, consuming less energy per mile.12 While gasoline costs vary by region, thecost of electricity is characterized by a more diverse set of factors including charging
location, time, and power level.
The cost to charge an EV (i.e., the EV ‘‘fuel’’ cost) depends on many factors, including
the retail price of electricity, capital cost of charging or electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), the cost of installation and maintenance of this equipment, and, for
dedicated charging stations, additional business and operational expenses.13,14
Each factor is further dependent on the type of EVSE used—AC Level 1 (L1), AC
Level 2 (L2), or direct current fast charging (DCFC); charging site—home residence,
workplace, or public station; charging profile; and geographic region. This
complexity produces a wide range of possible EV charging costs. Despite this,many studies9,15–18 assume the cost of EV charging to be equivalent to the average
residential cost of electricity (often the price reported by the U.S. Energy Information
Administration [EIA]19) or the average levelized cost of electricity generation.20–22
These simple assumptions fail to capture important variations in the cost of
EV charging associated with the factors described previously.
Prior studies have explored the economics of EV charging. Zhang et al.23
assessed the factors that directly and indirectly influence the economics of charging
infrastructure, concluding that charging price, as an endogenous factor, should
be considered more carefully in modeling. Economic evaluations of public charging
stations have been conducted in Germany24 and China,25 though these studies
are conducted from a station operator’s perspective rather than a consumer’s
perspective and do not extend to other charging sites or regions. Zhang et al.26
explored the relationship between charging infrastructure characteristics—
including the charging site and tariff type—and EV operating costs. The study,
however, focused on a single region (California) and was limited to a small set ofelectricity rates, and L1 or L2 charging. Lee and Clark18 performed a similar assessment of residential, workplace, and public charging, accounting for the fixed costof EVSE and the variable price of electricity in their estimates. They did not,however, capture regional differences in electricity prices or attempt to model
heterogeneous charging behaviors. Finally, in a recent study from the Union ofConcerned Scientists, residential utility rates from the 50 largest US cities wereanalyzed, finding that in all cases utilities offered an electricity rate that allowed
EV owners to save on fuel costs compared with gasoline vehicles.27 The study,
however, only considered the cost of charging at home because of the large cost
uncertainties associated with workplace and public charging.
Overall, while regional variability in the cost of electricity is widely understood andaccepted, the cost to charge an EV is also affected by other factors, namely thecost of charging equipment and differences in the mix of charging sites (home, workplace, public) and power levels. Although previous studies have explored some
aspects of the cost to charge an EV and its variability, this study provides an unprecedented assessment of the current (2019) state-level levelized cost of light-duty EV
charging (LCOC) in the United States, derived from real-world electricity rates,
including demand charges and time-of-use (TOU) tariffs, while also accounting forvariations in how and where EVs are currently refueled. In addition, the lifetime
fuel cost saving (LFCS) was estimated for a new battery electric vehicle (BEV) andplug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV; compared to a new ICEV) over a 15-yeartime horizon based on state-level gasoline prices and the LCOC.

1National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 15013

Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO, USA
2Idaho National Laboratory, 2525 Fremont Ave.,

Idaho Falls, ID, USA
3Lead Contact*Correspondence: matteo.muratori@nrel.gov
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013

Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020 1471

ll

Figure 1. Sensitivity of LCOC for US BEVs to Charging Site Mix, Vehicle Use, Utility Tariffs, andEquipment Costs

RESULTS
Under the baseline scenario, the current national average LCOC in the UnitedStates is $0.15/kWh for light-duty BEVs and $0.14/kWh for light-duty PHEVs. For
BEVs, this assumes a charging mix of 81% residential, 14% workplace and/or public
L2, and 5% DCFC, and that 84% of residential charging uses L2 EVSE.28 For PHEVs,
this assumes a charging mix of 81% residential and 19% workplace and/or public L2
and that 50% of residential charging uses L2 EVSE.28 These LCOC values are similar
to the average residential cost of electricity reported by EIA ($0.13/kWh),19 thoughestimates diverge extensively when additional factors are considered. In thissection, we explore the variability of the cost of EV charging and related fuel costsavings. Unless otherwise specified, all values reported in this section refer tothe baseline BEV scenario from Table 2.
To assess the possible variability in the national LCOC, a sensitivity analysis was
conducted over six factors related to charging behaviors, vehicle use, and EVSE
costs (Figure 1). The charging mix (i.e., the share of charging performed ateach charging site), lifetime vehicle miles traveled ([VMT]; affecting equipment
amortization), the availability and usage of residential TOU rates, and the power
level of residential EVSE (L1 versus L2) all play a major role in determining the
LCOC. Charging exclusively at DCFC stations, for example, increases thenational LCOC by 26% ($0.19/kWh). Ubiquitous use of L1 EVSE at home reduces
the cost by 24% ($0.11/kWh). Utilizing low cost, off-peak TOU rates also has amajor impact on the LCOC, ranging from a 14% reduction ($0.13/kWh) in the casewhere all residential charging leverages off-peak pricing to a 17% increase ($0.17/kWh) in the ‘‘business as usual’’ case. Reducing lifetime VMT to 100,000 miles increases charging costs by 15% ($0.17/kWh) assuming residential EVSE costs areamortized over a single vehicle’s lifespan, while higher VMT leads to cost reductions($0.14/kWh for 200,000 miles). The capital costs of workplace and public EVSE
(both L2 and DCFC) have less impact on the LCOC, with effect ranges of 3%
to +8% and 0% to 3%, respectively. This can be largely attributed to thecomparatively low share of energy consumed by workplace and DCFC charging(19% of total energy) versus residential charging (81% of total energy) in the baseline
scenario.

1472 Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020

Articlell

Article
WA

NH

$0.14

MT

$0.15

OR

$0.10

ID

WY

$0.15

NV

$0.11

UT

CO

$0.15

$0.13

$0.18

AZ

NM

$0.12

$0.14

AK

$0.12 ME
$0.10

MA
$0.23
RI
NY
$0.22
SD
$0.12
$0.12
MI
CT
$0.16
$0.18
NJ $0.15
PA
IA
$0.19
NE
$0.16
$0.12
DE
OH
IL
$0.15
$0.10
$0.16 IN $0.15WV
MD
$0.15
KS
$0.16 VA
MO
KY
$0.11
DC $0.17
$0.16
$0.14
$0.13
NC $0.10
TN
$0.13
OK
$0.15
SC
AR
$0.12
$0.13
AL GA$0.16
MS $0.13 $0.12
TX
$0.15
LA
$0.15
$0.13

$0.14

MN

$0.14

$0.13

CA

VT

ND

$0.15

WI

FL

$0.25

$0.15

$/kWh

HI

$0.31

$0.10

$0.31

Figure 2. State-Level Variability in LCOC for BEVs in the Baseline Scenario

Each factor may also interact with the others, producing a wide range of possible
LCOC values. The combined effects of multiple factors are quantified in the ‘‘Compounded’’ bar at the bottom of Figure 1. In the ‘‘best case’’ scenario, BEVs arecharged exclusively at home with L1 EVSE during off-peak TOU pricing periods.
This reduces the national LCOC by 48% ($0.08/kWh). Conversely, in the ‘‘worst
case’’ scenario, BEVs are charged exclusively at DCFC stations characterized byhigh EVSE costs and expensive distribution system upgrades. Under these conditions, the national LCOC increases by 83% ($0.27/kWh). In both cases, a shift
in charging mix amplified the effects of other factors associated with the LCOC
at the primary site, suggesting that prioritizing cost reductions for the primarycharging site (e.g., residential in the baseline scenario) would be the most effective
way to reduce the LCOC for current EV owners.
An additional sensitivity analysis was conducted to consider free workplace andpublic L2 charging, a scenario in which employers and businesses provide freecharging to employees and customers as either an added benefit or as an incentive
to attract business. Assuming no shift in charging mix, this reduces the national
LCOC by 14% ($0.13/kWh). However, consumers could change their charging
behaviors in response to a free charging opportunity. To assess the impact ofchanges in charging behavior, we assume that the availability of free workplace
and public L2 charging induces a shift in the charging mix away from residential
charging. If EV owners leverage free charging for 25% and 50% of their energy
needs (resulting in 70% and 45% residential charging, respectively, while DCFC
remains constant at 5%), the national LCOC would drop by 25% ($0.11/kWh) and
49% ($0.07/kWh), respectively.
The LCOC also varies significantly by state (Figure 2). This can be attributed tovariations in the cost to generate and distribute electricity, and the availability ofEV-friendly utility tariffs, including residential TOU and commercial rates withlow demand charges. The LCOC for the baseline BEV scenario varies from
$0.10/kWh in Oregon to $0.31/kWh in Hawaii, with most states in the $0.12/kWh
to $0.16/kWh range.
Although the LCOC is a key assumption for an economic analysis of EVs, it is not
intuitive for understanding the practical impact of the cost of charging on the total
cost of EV ownership. The LFCS translates the LCOC into a measure of lifetime
cost savings (versus an equivalent ICEV), providing a useful, though non-Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020 1473

ll

Figure 3. State-Level Variability in LFCS for BEVs in the Baseline Scenario

comprehensive, indicator for expected future savings associated with EV ownership.
The LFCS for BEVs in the baseline scenario are shown for all states in Figure 3.
Looking at LFCS, some states with higher gasoline prices, such as California($11,653) and Pennsylvania ($8,059), are more favorable for EVs despite their
LCOC being higher than the national average. Conversely, states with lower gasoline prices compared with electricity such as Texas ($6,382) and Tennessee($6,222) are less favorable for EVs. The national average LFCS for light-duty BEVs
is $7,758, meaning the average consumer can expect to save nearly $8,000 infuel costs over a 15-year period by purchasing a new 2019 BEV rather than a
new ICEV. For light-duty PHEVs, the national LFCS is very similar ($7,317). Thissimilarity is a result of three main factors:
1. BEV owners are more likely to install a residential L2 EVSE unit (84% of
home charging with L2 compared with 50% for PHEV owners28), sacrificing
cost for the convenience of faster and more flexible charging.
2. BEV owners get 5% of their electricity from DCFC stations,28 the most expensive of the modeled charging sites, whereas PHEV owners are unable tocharge with DCFC.
3. For PHEVs with a 50 miles all-electric range (historically popular in the UnitedStates), most driving occurs using electricity (utility factor of 76%30). Shorter
range PHEVs, such as the Toyota Prius Prime with 25 miles of all-electric range
and a utility factor of 53%,30 have a more modest LFCS of $6,545 (national
average).
Previously, it was shown how variations in charging behavior and EVSE costs havea significant effect on the LCOC. It was also shown how geographic region affects
the LCOC and LFCS. Combined, however, these factors produce an even greater
range of economic outcomes. Figure 4 presents this variation for LFCS under thethree charging cost scenarios. The low-cost scenario represents the ‘‘best case’’with respect to charging costs (i.e., least expensive charging site with low capitalcosts). The baseline scenario has already been described in detail, and the highcost scenario represents the ‘‘worst case’’ with respect to charging costs. State-level
LCOC and LFCS values were calculated for both BEVs and PHEVs for each of thethree charging cost scenarios and are reported in Figures S7 and S8, respectively.
The range of possible LFCS values in all states for each of the three charging cost
scenarios are presented in Figure 4. For BEVs, the range of LFCS outcomes varies

1474 Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020

ArticleArticlellFigure 4. State-Level Variability in LFCS for Low-, Baseline-, and High-Charging-Cost Scenarios

from $14,480 in Washington’s low-cost scenario to $2,494 in Hawaii’s high-cost
scenario (meaning that in this scenario, a BEV owner would pay $2,494 more infuel costs over a 15-year lifespan than an ICEV owner). For PHEVs, the range ofpossible LFCS varies between $12,409 in Washington (low-cost scenario) and$2,368 in Alabama (high-cost scenario).
Additionally, there are a number of key assumptions in the LFCS calculation thatare affected by large uncertainties, especially vehicle usage (VMT), economic
factors, and future fuel price projections. An additional sensitivity analysis isreported in Figure 5 to quantify these uncertainties considering different charging
behaviors and equipment costs (represented by the LCOC scenarios), lifetime
VMT, fuel price forecasts (considering residential electricity and gasoline priceprojections from EIA’s 2019 Annual Energy Outlook [AEO19] ‘‘Low’’ and ‘‘High Oil
Price’’ cases, illustrated in Figure S9), and discount rates.
The LFCS is most sensitive to differences in charging behaviors and equipment costs(the variations in LCOC discussed above), though it is also largely affected by VMTand, unsurprisingly, gasoline price projections (projected 2034 gasoline prices
range between $2.49 and $3.82/gallon, leading to a G 28% change in LFCS). Similar
to how the charging mix amplifies the effects of certain factors determining the
LCOC, lifetime VMT is a moderating variable for the calculation of LFCS. As VMT increases, the marginal cost savings due to these other factors are magnified. Escalation in electricity prices over time is similar in all three of the EIA scenarios (see Figure S9, with projected 2034 electricity prices ranging between $0.15/kWh and$0.16/kWh), thus its effect on LFCS is minimal. The LFCS is also sensitive to the chosen discount rate, with higher rates devaluing future savings and reducing LFCS,
though its effect is comparatively small. The combined effects of multiple factors
are quantified in a ‘‘Compounded’’ bar. The national average LFCS is shown to range
from just $555 in savings over 15 years to more than $16,000 depending on theseassumptions.
All the data generated in this analysis, including the underlying assumptions,are available for public download at https://data.nrel.gov/submissions/130.
Assumptions are also reported in Supplemental Information (S.6).

Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020 1475

llFigure 5. Sensitivity of the National Average LFCS for BEVs to the LCOC (Different Charging
Behaviors and Equipment Costs), Vehicle Use, Energy Price Forecasts, and Discount Rates

DISCUSSION
This study fills a significant research gap in the areas of EV charging and cost ofownership analyses by providing a detailed assessment of the total cost to charge
a light-duty EV in the United States, capturing variations related to charging sites,
equipment types and costs, and geographic regions. In addition to determining
the LCOC for three distinct charging sites—residential, workplace and/or public
L2, and DCFC—an average LCOC for BEVs and PHEVs was calculated that is representative of current charging patterns. A sensitivity analysis was performed to better
understand the factors that drive the LCOC and bound the cost of EV charging. The
LCOC was used to calculate the LFCS, a measure of total fuel savings for operating
an EV compared with an ICEV under identical driving conditions. Finally, a sensitivity
analysis of LFCS to varying assumptions and the uncertainties regarding future fuelprices was conducted finding it to be primarily affected by changes in charging behaviors and equipment costs (i.e., LCOC scenarios), vehicle use (VMT), and future
gasoline prices.
Each component of the LCOC is subject to change over time, especially as EV adoption continues to increase and utilities become more experienced with EV-specificrate design. Similarly, equipment and installation costs are expected to continue
to fall as the market expands (for reference, from 2010 to 2019, the typical cost forL2 charging equipment decreased by nearly 67%31). While useful for present-day
and near-future applications, the LCOC is a snapshot metric that should be recalculated periodically to ensure it represents current EV, EVSE, and energy markets.
The LFCS metric provides a useful extrapolation of the LCOC that can be used in
total cost of ownership assessments, including those made by consumers prior
to purchasing a new vehicle. It provides an indication of the expected lifetime
savings on fuel costs under present-day conditions (current electricity tariffs andcharging patterns). While accounting for projected fuel cost increases (electricity
and gasoline) over the next 15 years, it does not project fundamental shifts in thedesign and availability of utility tariffs in response to increased EV adoption or otherfactors. It also assumes that charging patterns (i.e., where people charge their EVs)
do not change over time.

1476 Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020

ArticleArticlell

In addition to providing detailed current LCOC and LFCS values for the UnitedStates, this analysis has produced general insights that are globally relevant. First,
the cost to charge an EV varies significantly and is dependent not only on variations
in regional electricity prices but also on the charging site, time of charging,power level, infrastructure cost, equipment utilization, and availability of EV-friendly
utility tariffs. While specific values will undoubtedly be different for other countries,
the methodology presented can be applied to determine LCOC and LFCS outside
the United States. Second, it is currently more economical for EV owners to charge
at lower power levels, minimizing the cost of EVSE and mitigating demand charges.
For example, an upgrade to L2 EVSE for residential charging adds more than $0.04/
kWh to the cost to charge when levelized over a 15-year period (a 37% increase
compared to use of L1). Higher vehicle use or equipment lifespan can significantly
reduce this cost. Moreover, L2 charging is faster and enables greater flexibility toreshape EV charging loads and leverage TOU electricity pricing. Third, at present,
DCFC is the most expensive charging option for BEVs owing to high capital costs,
low utilization coupled with commercial tariffs with demand charge components,
and additional operating expenses (especially with for-profit business models).
Additionally, DCFC is less flexible than residential or workplace charging, where vehicles remain plugged in for extended periods of time enabling ‘‘smart charging’’that further reduces the cost to charge. Residential charging, on the contrary, is typically the most cost-effective option, especially when leveraging off-peak TOU pricing. Shifting all residential charging to off-peak TOU periods reduces charging costs
by 26%. Fourth, free workplace and public L2 charging are predictably effective at
reducing EV charging costs for consumers. Finally, high all-electric-range PHEVs
can offer similar LFCSs to BEVs (94%). This is largely a result of the high share ofdriving that uses electricity, the lack of DCFC, and the fact that PHEV owners are,at present, less likely to upgrade from L1 to L2 EVSE at home. Shorter all-electricrange PHEVs (e.g., 25 miles) provide 84% of the fuel cost savings compared with
BEVs.
The LCOC and LFCS reported here (and their variability) can inform consumers,
decision makers, and policy makers and serve as input for analyses requiring accurate
EV charging costs. Given their dependence on underlying assumptions (e.g., chargingmix), the values reported herein are not intended to inform any specific individual,
whose assumptions will undoubtedly be different. However, access to the full set of
LCOC and LFCS values generated in this analysis (publicly available at https://data.
nrel.gov/submissions/130) enables consumers to estimate the LCOC and LFCS forthe region(s) and the mix of charging sites that are most appropriate for them.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Resource Availability
Lead Contact
Further information and requests for resources and materials should be directed
to and will be fulfilled by the Lead Contact, Matteo Muratori (matteo.muratori@
nrel.gov).
Materials Availability
The availability of data and code generated through this analysis are outlined in
the Data and Code Availability statement.
Data and Code Availability
The complete sets of LCOC and LFCS values generated in this study, in addition
to the four 15-minute DCFC station load profiles used to determine the cost ofJoule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020 1477

llArticleDCFC charging, are available through the NREL Data Catalog at: https://data.nrel.
gov/submissions/130. The code developed for this study is available from the Lead
Contact upon request.
Levelized Cost of Charging (LCOC)
EV owners have multiple options for recharging their vehicles. They can charge
at home, in a public or private parking area with installed EVSE (e.g., workplaces,
grocery stores, shopping malls, etc.), or at a dedicated public charging station (L2or DCFC). For this analysis, each site was modeled independently to capture variations in their associated equipment costs, installation costs, and retail electricity
prices—the price paid to purchase electricity from a utility. Costs at each charging
site were weighted by their share of total energy consumption—the ‘‘charging
mix’’ (CM)—to produce a combined LCOC value representative of the weighted
cost of EV charging for a set of assumptions, represented in Figure 6. The combined
LCOC is defined as:
LCOCcomb = CMres  LCOCres + CMwork  LCOCwork + CMDCFC  LCOCDCFC :(Equation 1)
The LCOC at each charging site is dependent on the capital cost of EVSE (Ccapital),
including the cost to purchase and install EVSE, the cost to operate and maintain
EVSE (CO&M), and the average retail price of electricity (CelÞ. All electricity is assumed
to have been purchased from a utility provider. Prospects for on-site generation (andassociated costs) or distributed stationary energy storage were not considered forthis analysis.
LCOC =

Ccapital +Plife

CO&M;ii = 1 ð1 + drÞiElife

+ Cel ;

(Equation 2)

Figure 6. Approach for Estimating the LCOC for an Electric Vehicle by Independently Modeling Alternative Charging Options

1478 Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020

ll

Articlewhere life is the equipment lifespan in years (assumed to be 15, equivalent to theassumed vehicle lifespan [We recognize that there is a current lack of data on
EVSE lifespans. This is a conservative assumption as it is possible that EVSE will operate well beyond a single vehicle’s lifespan, supplying energy for multiple generations of EVs. Additionally, certain installation costs, particularly those associatedwith home electrical upgrades, may not be required for future upgrades to ahome EVSE unit.]); CO&M,i is the annual maintenance cost in year I (estimated at
1% of the capital cost of equipment per year) discounted over the equipment lifespan using a discount rate dr (assumed to be 3.5% per year, the social rate of time
preference [The social rate of time preference reflects a ‘‘reasonable social aggregation of preferences over intertemporal inequality, giving actual savings behavior andestimates of future growth rates.’’] reported in Moore and Vining32); Elife is the totalenergy supplied throughout the EVSE’s lifespan (in kWh); and Cel is the average retailelectricity price (in $/kWh) that utilities charge their customers (vehicle owners forresidential and station operators for public stations). If estimates of future retailelectricity prices are available, they can be considered in the LCOC calculationand discounted, similarly to what was done for CO&M,i. This paper, however, reports
a snapshot of the 2019 LCOC only.
In the following sections, the methods used to estimate the LCOC at each charging
site—residential, workplace and/or public L2, and DCFC—are detailed.
Residential LCOC
Most EV charging currently takes place at home where owners can take advantage oflow residential electricity prices and convenient overnight charging.33 For residential
charging, the LCOC is calculated from Equation 2 and Elife is:
Elife; res = VMTlife  emiles  FE  CMres ;(Equation 3)

where VMTlife is 161,729 miles (total VMT was estimated from the average annual
vehicle miles by age [Table 22 in the 2017 National Household Travel Survey34],
applied over a fixed 15-year vehicle lifespan. Note that vehicle lifespan and utilization vary by vehicle type [e.g., pickup truck versus midsize car]; however, as an
attempt to generalize EVs, these adjustments were not considered.) (from the2017 National Household Travel Survey assuming a vehicle lifespan of 15 years34),
emiles is the fraction of miles driven in charge-depleting mode (1.0 for BEVs, 0.76
for PHEVs, the utility factor of the vehicle with highest cumulative sales since2010 at the time of writing [The Chevrolet Volt. Despite GM ending productionof the Volt in February 2019, its specifications, used here, are assumed to be
representative of a PHEV with 50 miles of range.] reported in the 2018 EPA Automotive Trends Report,30 with an all-electric range of 53 miles), FE is the vehicle
fuel economy in kWh/mile (0.28 based on 119 MPGe, the production-weighted
average fuel economy of model year 2017 BEVs in the United States30 and assuming
1 gasoline gallon equivalent equals 33.70 kWh35), and CMres is the fraction of
charging occurring at home (0.81, based on the charging behaviors, collectedby the Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI], for 45 BEV owners and 25 PHEV
owners from 2016–201828).
Home charging can be accomplished at a slow rate (2 to 5 miles of range perhour36) without paying for additional home upgrade costs by using the standard
120 V L1 household plug included with the vehicle. Many EV owners in the UnitedStates, however, install a 240 V L2 EVSE unit at an added cost for the convenienceof faster charging (typically 10 to 20+ miles of range per hour36) and additional
control over how and when a vehicle is charged enabling higher levels of ‘‘smart

Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020 1479

llcharging’’ (e.g., automated start times that align with off-peak electricity prices). L2
charging is especially common for BEV owners, who rely on home charging to meettheir daily driving requirements28,37; however, it likely poses a greater burden on the
distribution system when compared with L1 charging.38 The cost of residential L2
EVSE equipment and installation was estimated at $1,800 from billing data acquired for more than 1,200 residential EVSE installations in the United States (seeSupplemental Information [S.4] for more details).
The EIA reports the average residential price of electricity for 2,288 utilities in the
United States.39 However, EV owners may have the flexibility to schedule theircharging to align with times when variable electricity prices are at their lowest(typically overnight). For TOU tariffs, charging during off-peak times can result insignificant cost savings.18,27 These opportunities are not properly accounted forin EIA’s reporting of the average price of residential electricity, because EV
owners stand to benefit more than the average consumer by taking advantage of
TOU rates, since EV charging is more flexible than many other household loads.
To account for the prevalence and potential cost savings to EV owners that TOU
tariffs provide, current real-world TOU rates were data mined from the Utility Rate
Database (URDB) to determine their off-peak pricing. The URDB provides up-todate utility tariff information for more than 3,700 US utilities in the residential andcommercial sectors.40 Tariffs are used to estimate annual average retail electricity
prices, reflecting the cost to build, finance, maintain, and operate powerplants
and the electrical grid (for-profit utilities also include a financial return for its owners
and shareholders). In the baseline scenario, it was assumed that consumers would
optimize their rate selection and charging behaviors in order to minimize EV fuelcosts—fully leveraging off-peak TOU pricing when available and economical. To
model this, the EIA’s average price of residential electricity (for each utility) was
adapted to incorporate off-peak TOU rates, where applicable, from the URDB. For
the 277 utilities offering TOU rates to customers, the off-peak TOU price wascompared with the utility’s average residential price of electricity. For 235 utilities(85%), the off-peak TOU price offered additional cost savings opportunities. In
these cases, the lower TOU price was substituted for its EIA-reported counterpart.
State-level estimates were calculated by weighting the LCOC for each utility
providing service therein by their respective customer share.39 Additional modelingdetails regarding the LCOC calculation for residential charging are covered in
Supplemental Information (S.1).
Workplace and/or Public L2 LCOC
Increasingly, more employers and businesses are installing L2 EVSE in theirparking areas as an employee benefit or to attract new customers and increasecustomer dwell-time, in hopes of generating new business.41 Similar to residential
LCOC, workplace and/or public L2 LCOC is calculated with Equation 2. To estimate
the capital cost of equipment and installation, billing data were analyzed for 119
commercial L2 EVSE installation projects (see Supplemental Information [S.4] for details). The median reported cost of equipment ($3,500/plug) and installation($2,500/plug) were used in the baseline scenario. Given the variability in costdata, however, the 5th and 95th percentile cost estimates were chosen as lower
and upper bounds in a sensitivity analysis to examine their effects on the LCOC.
The state-level average price of commercial electricity reported by EIA was assumed
for the retail electricity price of workplace and public L2 charging.42 These rates were
not modified to account for the additional charging-induced electrical load because

1480 Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020

ArticleArticlell

it was assumed to be marginal compared with the existing commercial loads. The
workplace and/or public L2 LCOC is computed using Equation 2, where Elife is the
lifetime energy supplied by workplace and public L2 EVSE assuming they are utilized
for approximately 4.5 h per day (equivalent to 30 kWh/day) over a 15-year lifespan.43
DCFC LCOC
DCFC stations can help to curb ‘‘range anxiety’’ and enable long-distance BEV
travel.44,45 Additionally, DCFC provides rapid recharging opportunities for BEV
owners who cannot reliably charge at home. The LCOC for DCFC was calculatedusing the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s EV station Financial Analysis
Scenario Tool (EFAST). EFAST is a variant of the Hydrogen Financial Analysis
Scenario Tool46 (H2FAST; the H2FAST tool is publicly available as a downloadable
Excel spreadsheet at: https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/h2fast.html) tailored to
DCFC stations, calculating a LCOC value that accounts for capital costs, electricity
prices, taxes, and additional operating expenses. EFAST also generates detailed
annual finance projections in the form of income statements, cash flow statements,
and balance sheets.
Owing to their high power levels—currently, 50–150 kW per plug is typical—theequipment and installation costs for DCFC were much higher than for L2 EVSE.
The median cost of equipment (50 kW—$38,000/plug, 150 kW—$90,000/plug)for nearly 100 DCFC installations through The EV Project and Live Electric(see Supplemental Information [S.4] for details) informed the estimates for thebaseline scenario. Installation costs were found to follow a trend of $0.40/W oftotal installed power, meaning a 50-kW plug would cost $20,000 to install and a
150-kW plug would cost $60,000. As with workplace and public L2 EVSE, the 5th
and 95th percentile cost estimates for DCFC EVSE were used as lower and upperbounds in a sensitivity analysis.
The price of electricity for DCFC varies considerably depending on the utility
tariff (especially demand charges), station size and total capacity, and utilization.
For example, Muratori et al.13 showed that the price of electricity for DCFC ranges
from less than $0.10 to more than $2.00 per kWh, depending on station design
and utilization. To address this variability, the average electricity prices for four
DCFC station sizes and usage profiles (based on scenarios developed in Muratori
et al.47 that are illustrative of present- and near-future operations) were used.
These scenarios are described in detail in Supplemental Information (S.2). The
average annual price of electricity was determined for each load profile over morethan 4,000 applicable commercial rates in the URDB including seasonal variations,demand charges, tiered pricing structures, TOU, and combinations thereof.
Additional modeling details regarding the LCOC estimation for DCFC are coveredin Supplemental Information (S.3).
In modeling DCFC station operations, land costs were not considered. Additionally,
it was assumed that operators would provide electricity to consumers at a breakeven price (i.e., no return on investment). These decisions were made in responseto the high variability in local land prices and the many possible business strategies
that station operators might adopt. We do, however, explore the impact ofhigher installation costs due to required upgrades to the electrical distribution system triggered by high-power DCFC. Finally, subsidies, incentive programs, andother methods for reallocating costs (e.g., car manufacturers or other businesses
subsidizing EV charging costs to support and attract consumers) were not considered within this analysis, opting to measure the ‘‘true cost’’ of charging, not

Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020 1481

ll

ArticleTable 1. Median Capital Costs of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment from Collected Billing Data
Equipment

Installation

Total Cost

L1

$0

$0

$0

L2

$550/plug$1,286/plug$1,836/plug$3,500/plug$2,500/plug$6,000/plug

50 kW$38,000/plug$20,000/plug$58,000/plug

150 kW$90,000/plug$60,000/plug$150,000/plug

Residential

PublicL2
Public DCFC

DCFC, DC fast charging.

necessarily the cost experienced by individual EV owners. Table 1 summarizes
equipment and installation costs for different types of EVSE (assuming medianvalues from the range of billing data described in Supplemental Information [S.4]).
Scenarios
A baseline scenario was developed to estimate the average LCOC for current BEV
and PHEV owners in the United States. Additionally, a sensitivity analysis examinedthe effects of certain selected factors on the LCOC. These scenarios are defined inTable 2. The charging mix for different charging sites and share of residential L1and L2 EVSE for the baseline scenario are inferred from charging data, collectedby EPRI,28 for 23 Chevrolet Volt, 31 Nissan Leaf, and six Tesla vehicles over a year
and a half (values were derived under the assumption that all L1 charging occurs
at home). The PHEV baseline assumes no DCFC since, at present, DCFC is not an
option for most PHEVs. Lifetime VMT for the baseline scenario is the average VMTover 15 years reported by the 2017 National Household Survey,34 161,729 total
miles. Additionally, high VMT (200,000 miles) and low VMT (100,000 miles) cases
are considered. The residential TOU factor describes the following scenarios: inthe ‘‘100% TOU’’ case, all residential charging is assumed to align with off-peak
TOU pricing (derived from the URDB40); for ‘‘opportunistic TOU,’’ EV owners with access to off-peak TOU that is less expensive than their utility’s average residential rate
(reported by EIA39) use it, whereas others charge at the average residential rate;
finally, under the ‘‘business as usual’’ case, all EV owners charge at their utility’s
average residential rate (reported by EIA39) and do not leverage TOU pricing. For
EVSE costs, the baseline scenario assumes the median equipment and installation
cost from collected billing data (see Supplemental Information [S.4]). A sensitivity
Table 2. Baseline and Sensitivity Scenarios
FactorLower Bound

BEV-Baseline

PHEV-Baseline

Upper Bound

Charging mix

100% residential, 0% public
L2, 0% DCFC

81% residential, 14% public
L2, 5% DCFC

81% residential, 19%
public L2, 0% DCFC

0% residential, 0% public L2, 100% DCFC

Lifetime VMT200,000

161,729

161,729

100,000

Residential TOU

100% TOU

opportunistic TOU

opportunistic TOU

business as usual

Residential EVSE

100% L1

16% L1, 84% L2

50% L1, 50% L2

100% L2

Workplace and/or
publicL2 EVSE cost

5th percentile EVSE costs

median EVSE costs

median EVSE costs

95th percentile EVSE costs

DCFC EVSE cost

5th percentile EVSE costs

median EVSE costs

median EVSE costs

95th percentile EVSE costs + electricity
upgrade ($125,000 per 150-kW plug)

BEV, battery electric vehicle; EVSE, electric vehicle supply equipment; DCFC, DC fast charging; PHEV, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; VMT, vehicle miles traveled;
TOU, time-of-use.

1482 Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020

ll

Articlearound residential EVSE costs explores the impact of installing residential L2 EVSE.
For commercial EVSE, the 5th and 95th percentile costs from collected billing data
(see Supplemental Information [S.4]) are used to bound the sensitivity analysis.
Moreover, the impact of an additional $125,000/plug (in excess of capital costs)
was considered for 150-kW DCFC EVSE to explore the effect of additional costs
related to integrating high-power DCFC into the existing distribution network.
LFCS
While vehicle purchase price is readily accessible and easily interpreted by consumers,
fuel cost savings, involving multiple variables and more complicated calculations, areoften not considered.48 In response, the LFCS for new (2019) BEVs and PHEVs were
calculated. The LFCS describes the total discounted fuel savings for an EV whencompared with a similar conventional vehicle over a fixed lifespan and identical operating conditions (i.e., the same annual miles driven). It is an aggregate measure of the
discounted cost savings associated with improved efficiencies and lower present-day
and projected fuel costs for EVs. From a total cost of ownership perspective, the LFCS
could partially offset the purchase price premium paid by EV owners. Additional offsets that are not included in the LFCS include savings on maintenance costs, tax
credits, and additional purchase incentives. The LFCS is calculated as:
LFCS = LFCICEV  LFCEV
LFC =

life
X
VMTi  FE  Cfuel;ið1 + drÞi

i=1(Equation 4);(Equation 5)

where LFC is the lifetime fuel cost (in 2019 dollars), life is the vehicle’s lifespan inyears (assumed to be 15), VMT is the annual vehicle miles traveled (from averageannual miles per vehicle by vehicle age in the 2017 National Household Travel Survey34), FE is the vehicle fuel economy (in gallons/mile or gallon of gasoline equivalent/mile, determined from the production-weighted average fuel economy ofmodel year 2017 vehicles reported by EPA30), Cfuel,i is the fuel cost in year I (in$/kWh or $/gallon49), and dr is the discount rate, assumed to be 3.5%.32 Future
fuel prices are projected using the annual relative cost increase from 2019 to 2034
in EIA’s 2019 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO19) ‘‘Reference’’ case projections forresidential electricity and gasoline.29 For PHEVs, it was assumed that 76% of driving
occurs in charge-depleting mode, the utility factor30 for the Chevrolet Volt withan all-electric range of 53 miles. Table 3 shows the key assumptions used to
calculate LFCS.
Table 3. Baseline Assumptions for LFCS Calculation AEO19, EIA Annual Energy Outlook 201929
Vehicle Assumptions

ICEV

PHEV

BEV

MPGe

29

e: 119, g: 45

119%emiles / %gmiles

0/100

76/24

100/0

Lifetime VMT161,729

161,729

161,729

Vehicle lifespan15 years

15 years

15 years

Additional assumptions
Gasoline cost

starting from July 2019 AAA gasoline prices ($2.73/gal) andassuming escalation in line with AEO19 ‘‘reference’’ caseElectricity cost–

Discount rate–

starting from 2019 LCOC and assuming escalation inline with AEO19 ‘‘reference’’ case
3.5%

3.5%

3.5%

AAA, American Automobile Association; BEV, battery electric vehicle; ICEV, internal combustion engine vehicle; LCOC, levelized cost of charging; MPGe, miles
per gallon of gasoline-equivalent; PHEV, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; VMT, vehicle miles traveled.

Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020 1483

ll

ArticleSUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Supplemental Information can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.
2020.05.013.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy(DOE) under contract no. DE-AC36-08GO28308, and in part by Idaho National Laboratory under DOE contract no. AC07-05ID14517. Funding was provided by the U.S.
DOE Vehicle Technologies Office. The views and opinions of the authors expressedherein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. government or any agency
thereof. Neither the U.S. government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liabilityor responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information,
apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not
infringe privately owned rights. The authors are particularly appreciative of the support and guidance provided by DOE program managers Jake Ward and Rachael
Nealer, and for helpful comments from Katherine McMahon, Lee Slezak, Manish Mohanpurkar (DOE), Ian Sutherland (GM), Mu Li (Chevron), Timothy Wallington (Ford),
Andrew Meintz (NREL), and five anonymous reviewers. The authors also acknowledge NREL’s Micheal Penev for his assistance in developing and using the EV station
Financial Analysis Scenario Tool (EFAST).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualization: M.M. and B.B.; Methodology: M.M., B.B., and S.S.; Software,
Formal Analysis, and Visualization: B.B.; Data Curation: B.B., M.G., and S.S.; Writing– Original Draft: B.B., M.M., and S.S.; Writing – Review & Editing: B.B., and M.M.;
Funding Acquisition: M.M. and S.S.; Supervision: M.M.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
The authors declare no competing interests.
Received: November 27, 2019
Revised: March 10, 2020
Accepted: May 26, 2020
Published: June 22, 2020

SUPPORTING CITATIONS
The following references appear in the Supplemental Information: 50.

REFERENCES
1. Goldie-Scot, L. (2019). A behind the scenes
take on lithium-ion battery prices, Bloomberg
New Energy Finance, March 5, 2019. https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-takelithium-ion-battery-prices/.
2. Nykvist, B., and Nilsson, M. (2015). Rapidly
falling costs of battery packs for electricvehicles. Nature Clim Change 5, 329–332.
3. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2018).
Global EV, Outlook 2018. https://www.iea.org/
reports/global-ev-outlook-2018.
4. Argonne National Laboratory (2019). Light duty
electric drive vehicles monthly sales updates.

1484 Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020

https://www.anl.gov/es/light-duty-electricdrive-vehicles-monthly-sales-updates.
5. Haddadian, G., Khodayar, M., andShahidehpour, M. (2015). Accelerating the
global adoption of electric vehicles: barriersand drivers. Electr. J. 28, 53–68.
6. Li, W., Long, R., Chen, H., and Geng, J. (2017).
A review of factors influencing consumer
intentions to adopt battery electric vehicles.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 78, 318–328.
7. Boulanger, A.G., Chu, A.C., Maxx, S., andWaltz, D.L. (2011). Vehicle electrification: status
and issues. Proc. IEEE 99, 1116–1138.

8. Weiss, M., Zerfass, A., and Helmers, E. (2019).
Fully electric and plug-in hybrid cars – ananalysis of learning rates, user costs, and costs
for mitigating CO2 and air pollutant emissions.
J. Clean. Prod. 212, 1478–1489.
9. Hagman, J., Ritzén, S., Stier, J.J., and Susilo, Y.
(2016). Total cost of ownership and its potential
implications for battery electric vehicle
diffusion. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 18, 11–17.
10. Kerman, K. (2019). Reducing maintenance costswith electric vehicles, NYC Department ofCitywide Administrative Services, NYC Fleet
Newsletter – Issue 255, March 8, 2019. https://
www1.nyc.gov/assets/dcas/downloads/pdf/
fleet/NYC-Fleet-Newsletter-255-March-8-llArticle2019-Reducing-Maintenance-Costs-WithElectric-Vehicles.pdf.
11. American Automobile Association (AAA).
(2017). Your driving costs: how much are you
really paying to drive?, 2017 edition. https://exchange.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/17-0013_Your-Driving-Costs-Brochure2017-FNL-CX-1.pdf.
12. Sperling, D. (1996). The case for electricvehicles. Sci. Am. 275, 54–59.
13. Muratori, M., Kontou, E., and Eichman, J.
(2019). Electricity rates for electric vehicle direct
current fast charging in the United States.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 113, 109235.
14. Morrissey, P., Weldon, P., and O’Mahony, M.
(2016). Future standard and fast charging
infrastructure planning: an analysis of electricvehicle charging behaviour. Energy Policy 89,
257–270.
15. Elgowainy, A., Han, J., Ward, J., Joseck, F.,
Gohlke, D., Lindauer, A., Ramsden, T., Biddy,
M., Alexander, M., Barnhart, S., et al. (2016).
Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Analysis of U.S. Light
Duty Vehicle-Fuel Pathways: A Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment ofCurrent (2015) and Future (2025–2030)
Technologies (Argonne National Laboratory,
ANL/ESD-16/7). https://publications.anl.gov/
anlpubs/2016/09/130244.pdf.
16. Elgowainy, A., Rousseau, A., Wang, M., Ruth, M.,
Andress, D., Ward, J., Joseck, F., Nguyen, T.,
and Das, S. (2013). Cost of ownership and wellto-wheels carbon emissions/oil use ofalternative fuels and advanced light-duty vehicle
technologies. Energy Sustain. Dev. 17, 626–641.
17. Mai, T., Jadun, P., Jeffrey, L., McMillan, C.,
Muratori, M., Steinberg, D., Vimmerstedt, L.,
Jones, R., Haley, B., and Nelson, B. (2018).
Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios ofElectric Technology Adoption and Power
Consumption for the United States (National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A2071500). https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy18osti/
71500.pdf.
18. Lee, H., and Clark, A. (2018). Charging thefuture: challenges and opportunities forelectric vehicle adoption, Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs, Harvard
Kennedy School. https://projects.iq.harvard.
edu/files/energyconsortium/files/rwp18026_lee_1.pdf.
19. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)(2019). Electric Power Monthly – May. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/.
20. Noori, M., Gardner, S., and Tatari, O. (2015).
Electric vehicle cost, emissions, and water
footprint in the United States: development ofa regional optimization model. Energy 89,
610–625.
21. Orsi, F., Muratori, M., Rocco, M., Colombo, E.,
and Rizzoni, G. (2016). A multi-dimensional
well-to-wheels analysis of passenger vehicles indifferent regions: primary energy consumption,
CO2 emissions, and economic cost. Appl.
Energy 169, 197–209.
22. Offer, G.J., Howey, D., Contestabile, M.,
Clague, R., and Brandon, N.P. (2010).
Comparative analysis of battery electric,hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a
future sustainable road transport system.
Energy Policy 38, 24–29.
23. Zhang, Q., Li, H., Zhu, L., Elia Campana, P., Lu,
H., Wallin, F., and Sun, Q. (2018). Factors
influencing the economics of public charging
infrastructures for EV – a review. Ren. Sus.
Energy Reviews 94, 500–509.
24. Schroeder, A., and Traber, T. (2012). The
economics of fast charging infrastructure forelectric vehicles. Energy Policy 43, 136–144.
25. Li, Z., and Ouyang, M. (2011). The pricing of
charging for electric vehicles in China—
Dilemma and solution. Energy 36, 5765–5778.
26. Zhang, L., Brown, T., and Samuelsen, S. (2013).
Evaluation of charging infrastructure
requirements and operating costs for plug-in
electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 240,
515–524.
27. Reichmuth, D. (2017). Going from pump toplug (Union of Concerned Scientists). https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2017/11/cv-report-ev-savings.pdf.
28. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). (2018).
Electric vehicle driving, charging, and load
shape analysis: a deep dive into where, when,and how much Salt River project (SRP) electricvehicle customers charge. http://mydocs.epri.
com/docs/PublicMeetingMaterials/ee/
000000003002013754.pdf.
29. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA
(2019). Annual Energy Outlook. https://www.
eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/aeo2019.pdf.
30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA
(2019). The 2018 EPA automotive trends report:
greenhouse gas emissions, fuel economy, andtechnology since 1975. https://nepis.epa.gov/
Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100W5C2.PDF?
Dockey=P100W5C2.PDF.
31. Nelder, C., and Rogers, E. (2019). Reducing EV
charging infrastructure costs, Rocky Mountain
Institute - RMI. https://rmi.org/insight/
reducing-ev-charging-infrastructure-costs/.
32. Moore, M., and Vining, A. (2018). The social
rate of time preference and the social discountrate, Mercatus Research Paper. https://www.
mercatus.org/publications/regulation/socialrate-time-preference-and-social-discount-rate.
33. Greene, D., Kontou, E., Borlaug, B., Brooker,
A., and Muratori, M. (2020). Public charging
infrastructure for plug-in electric vehicles: what
is it worth? Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 78,
102182.
34. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
(2018). 2017 National household travel survey travel trends U.S. Department ofTransportation. https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/
2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf.
35. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2014).
Alternative fuels data center – fuel properties
comparison. https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/
fuel_comparison_chart.pdf.
36. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Alternative
fuels data center: developing infrastructure to
charge plug-in electric vehicles. https://afdc.

energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure.
html. Accessed in 2020.
37. Lee, J.H., Chakraborty, D., Hardman, S., andTal, G. (2020). Exploring electric vehicle
charging patterns: mixed usage of charging
infrastructure. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ.
79, 102249.
38. Muratori, M. (2018). Impact of uncoordinatedplug-in electric vehicle charging on residential
power demand. Nat. Energy 3, 193–201.
39. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)(2017). Form EIA-861, Annual Electric Power
Industry Report. https://www.eia.gov/
electricity/data/eia861/.
40. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Utility
Rate Database, OpenEI, https://openei.org/
wiki/Utility_Rate_Database. Accessed in 2020.
41. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) (2017).
Workplace charging challenge – progress
update 2016: a new sustainable commute.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/WPCC_2016%20Annual%20Progress%
20Report.pdf.
42. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)(2018). Electric power annual, 2017. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/archive/pdf/
03482017.pdf.
43. Smart, J., and Scoffield, D. (2014). Workplacecharging case study: charging station
utilization at a work site with AC level 1, AClevel 2, and DC fast charging units, (Idaho
National Laboratory). https://inldigitallibrary.
inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/6237144.pdf.
44. Wood, E., Rames, C., Muratori, M., Raghavan,S., and Melaina, M. (2017). National plug-in
electric vehicle infrastructure analysis, U.S.
Department of Energy. https://www.nrel.gov/
docs/fy17osti/69031.pdf.
45. Nilsson, M. (2011). Electric vehicles: thephenomenon of range anxiety, ELVIRE. http://
e-mobility-nsr.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/
downloads/info-pool/
the_phenomenon_of_range_anxiety_elvire.
pdf.
46. Penev, M., Melaina, M., Bush, B., and Zuboy, J.
(2017). Hydrogen financial analysis scenario
tool (H2FAST): spreadsheet tool user’s manual,
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
https://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/assets/pdfs/
h2fast_spreadsheet_user_manual.pdf.
47. Muratori, M., Elgqvist, E., Cutler, D., Eichman,J., Salisbury, S., Fuller, Z., and Smart, J. (2019).
Technology solutions to mitigate electricity
cost for electric vehicle DC fast charging. Appl.
Energy 242, 415–423.
48. Turrentine, T.S., and Kurani, K.S. (2007). Car
buyers and fuel economy? Energy Policy 35,
1213–1223.
49. American Automobile Association (AAA),
National average gas price. Gas Prices, https://
gasprices.aaa.com/. Accessed in 2020.
50. U.S. Department of Energy - DOE, Electricvehicle charging station locations. https://afdc.
energy.gov/fuels/electricity_locations.html#/
find/nearest?fuel=ELEC. Accessed in 2020.

Joule 4, 1470–1485, July 15, 2020 1485

JOUL, Volume 4

Supplemental Information

Levelized Cost of Charging Electric
Vehicles in the United States
Brennan Borlaug, Shawn Salisbury, Mindy Gerdes, and Matteo Muratori

Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States
Brennan Borlaug, a Shawn Salisbury, b Mindy Gerdes, b Matteo Muratori a,*aNational Renewable Energy Laboratory, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO, United States
Corresponding and lead contact author: matteo.muratori@nrel.govb
Idaho National Laboratory, 2525 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, ID, United States*

Supplemental Information
S.1 Residential LCOC Calculation
To calculate the retail price of residential electricity, utility-level residential prices reported by EIA28 wereadapted to account for off-peak TOU pricing (assuming that EV owners schedule their residential EV
charging to align with off-peak times). Specifically, the URDB29 was queried for utilities offering anapplicable TOU tariff with off-peak pricing that was less than its corresponding average price reported by
EIA. For these cases, the average price of electricity was replaced with the off-peak TOU price. Only
applicable TOU rates (i.e., rates not containing one of the special-purpose phrases listed in Table S1) wereconsidered.
Table S1. List of phrases used to disqualify special-purpose residential rates.

Administrative housing
Closed rate
Currently closed
Electric heat
Employee

Heat
Heating
Low-income
Low income
Retired employee

ThermalUnmetered
Water

Fixed charges, such as monthly meter charges, were omitted from the residential LCOC calculation since
it was assumed that increased electricity demand would have no effect on these costs. Additionally,
residential rates with demand charge components were omitted since it would have required access todetailed household load profiles to estimate the cost of charging. This was determined to be beyond thescope of this analysis.
Utility-level residential LCOC was calculated with Eq. (2), assuming the share of total energy required todrive 131,000 miles (81% of 161,729 miles in the baseline scenario). State-level estimates of the residential
LCOC were calculated using the customer-weighted average28 of the utility-level LCOC. This entire
procedure is presented in Figure S1.

1

Figure S1. Residential levelized cost of charging (LCOC) calculation process flow.

S.2 DCFC Station Profiles
Commercial utility tariffs typically include fixed ($/month), energy/consumption ($/kWh), and demand($/kW) charges that may vary by consumer type, region, season, time-of-use, and energy tier13. Calculating
the average price of electricity, therefore, requires time-resolved electricity consumption profiles tocompute all of the associated costs. In this study, four distinct DCFC load profiles, shown in Figure S2 anddeveloped by Muratori et al.45, were used to explore the variations in current and near-future DCFC station
utilization. Profiles consist of the average station load (in kW) over 15-minute intervals for one full year, a
resolution that aligns with how monthly demand charges are typically computed in the U.S. Profiles 1 and2 were derived using real-world power profiles from existing DCFC stations, each with a single 50-kW
charger. Profile 1 represents a remotely located charger that is rarely utilized (~1-2 charges per day–1.14%
utilization). Profile 2 represents a highly utilized single-plug urban charge station (~17 charges per day–
11.72% utilization). Profile 3 represents a near-future, medium-sized station with four 150-kW plugs(13.67% utilization), and Profile 4, another future scenario but much larger, with 20 highly utilized 150kW plugs designed as a “gasoline station equivalent” for EV charging (20.70% utilization). These profiles
are available for download at https://data.nrel.gov/submissions/130.

2

Figure S2. Load profiles for four DCFC station scenarios, from Muratori et al.45.

S.3 DCFC LCOC Calculation
The average annual price of electricity was calculated for each of the four DCFC station profiles using
current industrial and commercial rates available through the URDB29. Inapplicable rates were filtered by
the criteria outlined in Muratori et al.13 The average annual price of electricity accounts for fixed charges,
energy/consumption charges, and demand charges associated with each year-long demand profile,including price tiers, seasonal variations, and TOU pricing. For each combination of electricity rate anddemand profile, the average price of electricity was aggregated by utility (assuming that if a utility offers
multiple rates, the most cost-effective one would be selected). Utility-level electricity prices were thenaggregated by state, taking the average price of electricity from each utility operating therein and weighting
by the current number of similarly sized DCFC stations within each utility-county (obtained from the
Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuel Data Center (AFDC)). The weighted state-average price ofelectricity for each of the station profiles was fed to the EFAST tool, along with additional cost inputs suchas equipment and installation costs, tax rates, and internal rate of return (IRR) to determine the LCOC. The
LCOC for each of the four station scenarios was weighted by the size of existing DCFC stations (total
number of plugs from the AFDC) and their relative energy requirements. This entire procedure is
documented in Figure S3. The state-level LCOC for each of the four station scenarios (as well as the
combined DCFC LCOC value) are made available in the supplemental data download.

3

Figure S3. Direct current fast charging (DCFC) levelized cost of charging (LCOC) process flow.

S.4 Equipment and Installation Cost DataEVSE equipment and installation costs were gathered from a variety of data sources. Billing data from
1,332 L2 EVSE projects, including 1,213 residential sites and 119 public sites, were acquired from Smart
Charge America. Reported equipment costs, shown in Figure S4, were largely similar to purchase prices
found online, with some variation depending on the equipment’s power level and additional features.
Publicly installed L2 EVSE typically had higher equipment costs than residential L2 EVSE due to theincreased weatherproofing, added durability, pedestal mounting, inclusion of customer interfaces/payment
systems, and added warrantees or service agreements often reported in the billing price.

4

Figure S4. Equipment costs of level 2 electric vehicle supply equipment on a per-plug basis.

The installation costs for L2 EVSE projects (shown in Figure S5) varied significantly on a case-by-casebasis. Low-cost residential installations can be relatively straightforward, while high-cost installations
might require significant electrical work, including expensive upgrades to the distribution system, tocomplete. Commercial (i.e., public) L2 installations were found to be both more expensive and morevariable (with respect to billing costs) than the residential installations. These EVSE are commonly colocated with parking spaces, requiring extensive construction and electrical work including trenching andrepaving to provide power to the necessary location.

Figure S5. Installation costs of level 2 electric vehicle supply equipment on a per-plug basis.

Despite its confidential nature (there are currently only a handful of companies completing DCFC
installation projects), billing data was acquired for nearly 100 DCFC projects from The EV Project andLive Electric. The equipment cost estimates for 50-kW and 150-kW DCFC EVSE that are reported in Table
1 were derived from these data. The equipment cost distribution is not included to preserve confidentiality.

5Due to the significant power requirements of DCFC, installation costs can be very high. Construction costs,
like trenching, paving, and landscaping are generally required and for larger stations, distribution systemlevel upgrades may be needed to accommodate the increased load. Figure S6 displays the installation costs
for nearly 100 DCFC installation projects in the U.S normalized by the total amount of installed power($/W). The median ($0.40/W) was used to extrapolate the installation costs for modeling large-scale DCFC
stations.

Figure S6. Distribution of installation costs for 50-kW direct current fast chargers (in $/W installed power).

S.5 State-level LCOC and LFCS
Figure S7 reports the baseline LCOC for BEVs (red) and PHEVs (blue) at the state- and national-levels(represented by points in the figure). The range of possible LCOC values for different charging mixes—
residential, workplace/public-L2, and DCFC, utility rates, and EVSE capital costs are represented by bars
in the figure.
Figure S8 reports the baseline LFCS for BEVs (green) and PHEVs (yellow) at the state- and national-levels(represented by points in the figure). The range of possible LFCS values for different charging mixes—
residential, workplace/public-L2, and DCFC, utility rates, and EVSE capital costs are represented by bars
in the figure.

6

Figure S7. State-level baseline levelized cost of charging (points) and range (bars) for low (left) and high (right) sensitivities.

7

Figure S8. State-level baseline lifetime fuel cost savings (points) and range (bars) for low (right) and high (left) sensitivities.

8

S.6 Assumptions
LCOC Assumptions
Variable
Vehicle and EVSE lifespan
EVSE maintenance cost
lifetime-VMT (baseline)
BEV efficiency
PHEV gasoline-efficiency
PHEV electricity-efficiency
PHEV share of e-miles
Workplace EVSE utilization
Discount rate (baseline)
Inflation rate
Tax rate (DCFC)
Capital gains tax (DCFC)
Sales tax (DCFC)
Credit card payment fees (DCFC)
Internet cost (DCFC)
Property insurance (DCFC)
Admin. Expenses (DCFC)
Land rent (DCFC)
IRR (DCFC)

Value
15
1
161,729
119
45
119
76
30
3.5
1.9
21
15
2.25
2.5
600
0.9
0.5
0
0

BEV charge mix (baseline)

81; 14; 5

PHEV charge mix (baseline)

81; 19Units and Source
years% equip. cost annually
miles32
mpge33
mpg33
mpge33%33
kWh/day41% annually30% annually44%44%44% of sales44% of sales44$ annually44% annually44% of sales44$/month% of sales% Residential;% Public L2;% DCFC35% Residential;% Public L235

EVSE Cost Assumptions (units: $/plug)
Type
Residential-L1 equip
Residential-L1 install
Residential-L2 equip
Residential-L2 install
Public-L2 equip
Public-L2 install
DCFC-50 kW equip
DCFC-50 kW install
DCFC-150 kW equip
DCFC-150 kW installMedian
0
0
550
1,286
3,500
2,500
38,00020,00090,00060,0005th %-tile812
510
32,44910,50076,50031,50095th %-tile
7,435
6,624
44,40746,500105,300
264,500

LFCS Assumptions
Assumption
ICEV efficiency
2019 gasoline prices
Projected fuel costs(electricity & gasoline)

Value
Units and Source
29
mpg33$2.73/gal national average47
AEO1948, see Figure S99

Figure S9. 15-year gasoline and residential electricity price escalation projections from the EIA’s 2019 Annual Energy Outlook(AEO19) for three separate cases: “Reference” (baseline), “High Oil Price”, and “Low Oil Price”48.

10